salon.com— For the first time in 100 years, and contrary to a long-standing legal prohibition, an active duty military unit is permanently assigned inside the U.S.
Sep 24, 2008View in Crawl 4
This is some freaky crap. $700,000,000,000.00 bail out + elections about to take place.The timing of this makes me want to sculpt my very own tinfoil hat.
"They" are doing their damnedest. But nothing is written in stone until it's done...that is, except the Georgia Stone. Now do you believe me? Good luck to those of you who do not, sincerely.
magus_melchior: "Would they reject the orders of their Commander-in-Chief if they suspect he's wrong?" This may help you and a lot of people rest your fears: Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., National Commander, The Patriots - Open letter to the Pentagon - dtd: 2007..."We know that many of you share our concern and our determination to protect our republic from an arrogant, out-of-control, imperial presidency and a compliant, namby-pamby Congress (both of which are unduly influenced by the oil companies and other big-money interests). We know that you (like us) wouldn't have pursued a military career unless you were idealistic and devoted to our nation and its people. (None of us do it for the pay and working conditions!) But we also recognize that you may not see how you can influence these events. We in the military have always had a historic subservience to civilian authority.Perhaps I can help with whatever wisdom I've gathered from age (I retired in 1978, so I am ancient indeed).Our oath of office is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Might I suggest that this includes a rogue president and vice-president? Certainly we are bound to carry out the legal orders of our superiors. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which binds all of us enshrines the Nuremberg Principles which this country established after World War II (which you are too young to remember). One of those Nuremberg Principles says that we in the military have not only the right, but also the DUTY to refuse an illegal order. It was on this basis that we executed Nazi officers who were "only carrying out their orders."The Constitution which we are sworn to uphold says that treaties entered into by the United States are the "highest law of the land," equivalent to the Constitution itself. Accordingly, we in the military are sworn to uphold treaty law, including the United Nations charter and the Geneva Convention.BASED ON THE ABOVE, I CONTEND THAT SHOULD SOME CIVILIAN ORDER YOU TO INITIATE A NUCLEAR ATTACK ON IRAN (FOR EXAMPLE), YOU ARE DUTY-BOUND TO REFUSE THAT ORDER. I MIGHT ALSO SUGGEST THAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DEMAND THAT YOU ARREST WHOEVER GAVE THE ORDER AS A WAR CRIMINAL.I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT IN RECENT HISTORY (ONCE UNDER NIXON AND ONCE UNDER REAGAN), THE MILITARY NUCLEAR CHAIN OF COMMAND IN THE WHITE HOUSE DISCUSSED THESE THINGS AND WERE PREPARED TO REFUSE AN ORDER TO "NUKE RUSSIA ." IN EFFECT THEY TOOK THE (NON-EXISTENT) "BUTTON" OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE PRESIDENT.. WE WERE THUS NEVER QUITE AS CLOSE TO WORLD WAR III AS MANY FEARED, NO MATTER HOW IRRATIONAL ANY PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE BECOME. THEY DETERMINED THAT THE PROPER RESPONSE TO ANY SUCH ORDER WAS, "WHY, SIR?" UNLESS THERE WAS (IN THEIR WORDS) A "DAMN GOOD ANSWER," NOTHING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.I suggest that if you in this generation have not had such a discussion, perhaps it is time you do. In hindsight, it's too bad such a discussion did not take place prior to the preemptive "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad . Many of us at the time spoke out vehemently that such an attack would be an impeachable offense, a war crime against the people of Iraq , and treason against the United States of America . But our voices were drowned out and never reached the ears of the generals in 2003. I now regret that I never sent a letter such as this at that time, but depended on the corporate media to carry my message. I must not make that mistake again...." Link for the rest: <a class="user" href="http://thepatriots.us/pg_02_openLetter.html">http://thepatriots.us/pg_02_openLetter.html</a>
sharpforkSep 24, 2008
This is some freaky crap. $700,000,000,000.00 bail out + elections about to take place.The timing of this makes me want to sculpt my very own tinfoil hat.
sconnorSep 25, 2008
"They" are doing their damnedest. But nothing is written in stone until it's done...that is, except the Georgia Stone. Now do you believe me? Good luck to those of you who do not, sincerely.
paintgrlSep 30, 2008
Yeah well you never can be to sure can you.
honestabeSep 30, 2008
Governments would have no power whatsoever without soldiers volunteering to obey everything they're told.
Closed AccountSep 30, 2008
magus_melchior: "Would they reject the orders of their Commander-in-Chief if they suspect he's wrong?" This may help you and a lot of people rest your fears: Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., National Commander, The Patriots - Open letter to the Pentagon - dtd: 2007..."We know that many of you share our concern and our determination to protect our republic from an arrogant, out-of-control, imperial presidency and a compliant, namby-pamby Congress (both of which are unduly influenced by the oil companies and other big-money interests). We know that you (like us) wouldn't have pursued a military career unless you were idealistic and devoted to our nation and its people. (None of us do it for the pay and working conditions!) But we also recognize that you may not see how you can influence these events. We in the military have always had a historic subservience to civilian authority.Perhaps I can help with whatever wisdom I've gathered from age (I retired in 1978, so I am ancient indeed).Our oath of office is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Might I suggest that this includes a rogue president and vice-president? Certainly we are bound to carry out the legal orders of our superiors. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which binds all of us enshrines the Nuremberg Principles which this country established after World War II (which you are too young to remember). One of those Nuremberg Principles says that we in the military have not only the right, but also the DUTY to refuse an illegal order. It was on this basis that we executed Nazi officers who were "only carrying out their orders."The Constitution which we are sworn to uphold says that treaties entered into by the United States are the "highest law of the land," equivalent to the Constitution itself. Accordingly, we in the military are sworn to uphold treaty law, including the United Nations charter and the Geneva Convention.BASED ON THE ABOVE, I CONTEND THAT SHOULD SOME CIVILIAN ORDER YOU TO INITIATE A NUCLEAR ATTACK ON IRAN (FOR EXAMPLE), YOU ARE DUTY-BOUND TO REFUSE THAT ORDER. I MIGHT ALSO SUGGEST THAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DEMAND THAT YOU ARREST WHOEVER GAVE THE ORDER AS A WAR CRIMINAL.I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT IN RECENT HISTORY (ONCE UNDER NIXON AND ONCE UNDER REAGAN), THE MILITARY NUCLEAR CHAIN OF COMMAND IN THE WHITE HOUSE DISCUSSED THESE THINGS AND WERE PREPARED TO REFUSE AN ORDER TO "NUKE RUSSIA ." IN EFFECT THEY TOOK THE (NON-EXISTENT) "BUTTON" OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE PRESIDENT.. WE WERE THUS NEVER QUITE AS CLOSE TO WORLD WAR III AS MANY FEARED, NO MATTER HOW IRRATIONAL ANY PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE BECOME. THEY DETERMINED THAT THE PROPER RESPONSE TO ANY SUCH ORDER WAS, "WHY, SIR?" UNLESS THERE WAS (IN THEIR WORDS) A "DAMN GOOD ANSWER," NOTHING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.I suggest that if you in this generation have not had such a discussion, perhaps it is time you do. In hindsight, it's too bad such a discussion did not take place prior to the preemptive "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad . Many of us at the time spoke out vehemently that such an attack would be an impeachable offense, a war crime against the people of Iraq , and treason against the United States of America . But our voices were drowned out and never reached the ears of the generals in 2003. I now regret that I never sent a letter such as this at that time, but depended on the corporate media to carry my message. I must not make that mistake again...." Link for the rest: <a class="user" href="http://thepatriots.us/pg_02_openLetter.html">http://thepatriots.us/pg_02_openLetter.html</a>